Skip to comments.Pro-Life Group Obtains Internal Documents Showing Pro-Abortion Strategy
Posted on 12/08/2003 2:24:04 AM PST by Got a right to Life? . . Huh?
New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (CFAM) announced Thursday that it has obtained internal memos from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) detailing the strategy to develop international pro-abortion laws that can be imposed and enforced throughout the world -- ultimately government financed abortion on demand worldwide.
"The memos appear to confirm long-standing fears of some legal scholars that international negotiations on human rights laws are no longer conducted in good faith, and that national sovereignty is jeopardized by such negotiations," wrote Douglas Sylvia, Vice President of CFAM, in the first of a series of three regarding the memos released Thursday.
In an interview with LifeNews.com, Austin Ruse, President of CFAM, called the CRR a "very radical and very powerful" pro-abortion law firm located in New York, and said the document, which summarizes the conclusions of strategic planning meetings held by CRR in late October, is "vitally important" and should be read by all policy makers.
CFAM plans to unveil more on the CRR memos over the next two weeks. In addition, CFAM has provided the document to select organizations, and sometime next week it will be make it generally available to the public.
Ruse told LifeNews.com that while the strategy disclosed in the document is "nothing new" to his organization, it is a "smoking gun" belying the tactics pro-abortion groups have denied for years -- tactics that he called "primarily deception."
"Most of their work is getting governments to accept language that will change meanings later," said Ruse. "For instance, they like the phrase reproductive health instead of abortion -- if they used abortion they'd likely lose. When it comes to enforcement, that term can be used to refer to abortion."
Such is the strategy summarized in the 60-page document that was sent to CFAM from an anonymous source.
The document states that CRRs "overarching goal is to ensure that governments worldwide guarantee reproductive rights out of an understanding that they are bound to do so." This goal includes the international establishment of the "inalienable nature" of "sexual rights," including "sexual autonomy" for girls, specifically "reproductive information and services, such as abortion, without parental notification or consent," according to Sylvia. Such policies and international laws could be enforced on governments, nullifying their sovereignty over such issues.
CRR plans to employ a three-step strategy to achieve their goal.
First, they hope to take advantage of accepted international rights, referred to as "hard norms," and expand the interpretations to embody elements of the pro-abortion agenda.
"Thus, CRR claims to have found, or "grounded," a right to abortion in the right to life, the right to health, even the right to enjoy scientific progress," noted Sylvia.
In the documents, CRR states that this technique is preferred because "There is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition."
The next step in the plan is to create new international laws, termed "soft norms," that mention abortion and sexual autonomy. If presented and repeated enough, such laws may become hard norms ones that can be considered binding for nations.
"Soft norms accumulate in a host of international and regional settings, including through the European Court of Human Rights and UN compliance committees," CFAM said in announcing the memos.
The final step in CRRs strategy is to enforce the new laws on resisting nations "supporting efforts to strengthen existing enforcement mechanisms, such as the campaign for the International Criminal Court and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. (CEDAW)"
According to the UN website, CEDAW, approved in 1979, "is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination."
CEDAW refers to abortion as a "medical procedure needed by women" and states that "it is discriminatory for a country to refuse to legally provide for the performance of certain reproductive health services for women."
CEDAW has garnered support from many pro-abortion groups for this reason, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, who criticized President Bush for his lack of support, and called his refusal to sign it "a testament to his overall contempt for women and his steadfast refusal to respect their fundamental civil and human rights."
In November, nineteen pro-abortion organizations sent a letter to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte, calling the recent U.S. resolution to boost the role of women in national governments "lip service" to women's rights, simply because it failed to promote CEDAW.
"CEDAW offers not only words, but an enforcement mechanism for implementing steps towards equality," including "numerical and timebound" quotas, according to the NGOs letter, meaning that the Convention, and its agenda to make abortion more readily available, has the same binding power of international law.
"[They] are all leaders in the struggle for an international right to abortion-on-demand for adolescents and women," said Sylvia. "They have been pleased that the CEDAW Committee, the committee that oversees nations' compliance with the Convention, has repeatedly told nations to legalize abortion."
Such previous actions by the pro-abortion groups are why Ruse isn't surprised by the strategy described in the document, but feels that the "blueprint" is crucial.
Recent developments, he added, make the international pro-abortion agenda a rising concern.
"We are in a post-Lawrence world," Rose said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared laws banning sodomy to be unconstitutional a decision based in part on foreign laws and decisions.
"This is Armageddon for Roe V. Wade," Rose told LifeNews.com. "If it were to go back to the Supreme Court now, other countries laws would be considered in the decision."
The Lawrence decision, now allows pro-abortion groups to "encourage out Court to accept foreign decisions."
Related Links: Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute - http://www.c-fam.org
About 3500 pre-born human beings die each day in the United States. The "right" to childless unprotected sex is extremely costly for those aborted and our society. Now is the time to get involved.
I agree that there must be some reason(s) that motivates them beyond common understanding.
1. The promise of truly "free sex" can only be realized when procreation can be positively short circuited, i.e. through baby killing.
2. Money is a big motivator for the baby killing industry, but the numbers of those who owe their income to this grizzly practice does not explain the level of political influence.
3. Those in the population control circles in world politics probably fantasize about unspoiled by so many human beings. Killing people is unpopular. Granting women the "right" to kill her own children spins better and is far less visible means of controlling population.
4. Macro economic issues tie into the motivations for abortion in some ways I don't fully understand. In the short term, you can get a bump in productivity if less of it is spent on raising children. Any fool can see the down side of the policy long term. The department of labor has forecast major labor shortfalls in a couple of decades. I contend that a main brake on our economic growth is our low birth rate. I also believe that most of the social security shortage can largely be explained by a womans "right" to kill.
They are masters of propaganda. Nothing here we didn't know already, but it's good to have confirmation.
There's a perverse logic to this that has its origins in hell.
I have a friend who has a radio talk show that would find that very interesting.
Somebody wants to make it legal to get very young girls into prostitution, eh? Hillary attended an international women's conference in Vienna while her husband was in the White House, and advocated lowering the 'age of consent' for girls to 12 years, also legalizing prostitution! And this, during the time that she and her husband were photographed smiling in the White House with the biggest, most notorious pimp (of women and children) in Asia! (and receiving illegal money from him, no doubt)
The term "abortion" is too vague for legal processes and encompasses
too broad a spectrum both legally and medically.
The propaganda of both sides of this issue has always been the
far side of preposterous; this entire scenario is a great example.
[and now we have "pre-born human beings"?]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.